uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
ken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 amCopying and repeating what others have said and/or written more accurately is what sadly some people think is learning, and the more accuracy one person
just repeats or copies what others before have already said and/or written, then it is perceived by some, very depressingly, that that person has learned more.
I don't know what sort of school you went to, but in all the ones I went to, we were shown and performed experiments so that we didn't have to take the teacher's word for it, we could see for ourselves.
The motto of The Royal Society (who all great British scientists get elected to: Isaac Newton. Michael Faraday. Charles Darwin. James Clark Maxwell. Stephen Hawking are some you might have heard of) is Nullius in verba-take no ones word for it.
But that 'not taking others words for some thing' is the very thing I do, and what I have been pointing out that you are actually doing when you keep saying that others have demonstrated ... such and such .... What I have been pointing out is that what you are exactly doing is just taking others words for it. You accept things, without actual first hand experience of them. Because some things are written down or said BY OTHERS, you blindly accept that as being true. This is obviously depended upon who is doing the talking. By repeating what others have said you are accepting AND taking another's word for it. It does NOT matter who says it. If it is said by ANOTHER, then, as the motto of that place is, and as I have been repeatedly suggesting, take no ones word for it. The better thing to do, I found, is to just remain completely OPEN. But NO one is going to accept that because NO follows nor believes Me.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 amOne of the few philosophers of science that scientists actually listened to was Karl Popper.
Sounds like those scientists could be taking another's word for some thing?
And, by saying that those labelled as "scientists" ACTUALLY LISTENED to that person are you then suggesting that that person should be given more credibility, because "scientists" actually listened to that one?
Are so called "scientists" the best ones to listen to or use for making judgments upon?
Again this sounds like those ones that you follow and believe in, namely "scientists", the rest of us SHOULD listen to and follow also.
Are we going back to having to highlight how some people follow and believe in others, while other people follow and believe in other people?
What just happen to 'take no ones word for it'?
Seems like we are back to 'take no ones word for it' but if a "scientist" says it, then accept it and BELIEVE it, wholeheartedly.
Human beings are taught, again through, what is generally known as an "education" system, that when a "scientist" says some thing, then that word should be accepted and taken. For example, if a human being labeled "painter" writes "wet paint" on a piece of paper on some thing, then that is more than not NOT ACCEPTED as being the truth, and a first hand touch test is done to verify its validity, BUT, if a human being labeled "scientist" writes 'the wind speed on jupiter is 384 miles per hour', then that is more than not ACCEPTED as being the truth. And, when that message is relayed as news through television or through print and is expressed as "scientists say, the wind speed on jupiter is (whatever), then more than not, it is ACCEPTED as being the truth. When, and if, the validity of this gets questioned what is usually repeated back is "the empirical data", as though that is some how magical proof. THEN, if the so called "empirical data" is questioned, then what is usually repeated back is some thing like, "you are denying the evidence", which may NOT actually be happening at all. But, if people do NOT want to have a full and open discussion about some thing, then there is not much that I can do about that at all. The fact that the instruments used to make measurements could be faulty or giving wrong readings for a multitude of reasons, and/or the fact that the reasons WHY those measurements are being recorded never seem to be allowed to be questioned. What is usually proposed is that is the empirical data, and the reason for that data is what we say it is, and therefore if you are going to question this, then you are just denying the "evidence".
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 amHe came up with falsificationism, the idea that hypotheses and theories can never be proven true.
If, and when, every thing is found to be true in hypotheses and theories, then what are they then known by?
Is 'earth spherical', a theory? If not, then what is it?
Is 'earth revolving around the sun', a theory? If not, then what is it?
Is 'evolution' a theory', a theory? If not, then what is it?
If we can rule out absolutely every thing as being false, and so are left with only a spherical earth, that revolves around the sun, which has evolved this way, then are they proven, or are, true, or, do they forever more remain just theories?
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 amThey can, however, be proved wrong, so an important part of science is to test theories on the assumption that it will break; at which point, you can see were the cracks occurred and rebuild the theory to make it stronger, or start from scratch.
WHY assume that they will break? WHY NOT just remain completely OPEN?
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 amYou don't get a Noble Prize for proving something we already know.
What is it with human beings and 'prizes'?
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 amI could go on, but one of the problems identified by Popper is that some theories are unfalsifiable.
Again, are you taking another's word for it?
If some theories are unfalsifiable, then what are they?
And, HOW is that a problem?
No matter how many times adherents are proved wrong, they will just reshape their theory to accommodate the evidence, or they will simply ignore it. And that, ken, is exactly what you do. Which is ironic, because you have persuaded yourself that it's the other way round:[/quote]
What exactly do you think I am ignoring?
Is that ONLY what I have persuaded myself, as you call it, or COULD THAT 'other way round' BE exactly
what IS happening?
COULD it be the fact that you are being proved wrong?
COULD you, and others before you, be "finding and continuing to be finding evidence" that supports what it is that you already BELIEVE is true?
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 amken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 amBeing as closed as you are, you unable to obtain My true and real view of things.
But then, we could see it a mile off. This was over a month ago:
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
ken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pmTime does NOT dilate, nor does length contract just because a human being observer is traveling. The "scientific" evidence for this, which you are probably looking for and seeking, will come soon enough.
You might as well get it over with. I suspect it will be chewed up and spat out by four or five of us in under two paragraphs. After which, you will sulk and accuse us of not being open-minded, or indoctrinated by some quasi-religious cabal of scientific conspirators.
But then, perhaps you are the exception. Whaddya got, ken?
If you are the exception, it's about time you showed it, rather than trot out the same old bollocks that cranks everywhere trade in.
WHAT makes you think I HAVE TO do any thing?
Also, are you really that stupid or ignorant enough NOT to be able to recognize that I am NOT yet able to communicate properly? I am the least educated one, 'educated' from your definition of 'educate', and I obviously NOT worthy of being listened to. If you could notice some things over a month ago, then WHY can you NOT notice every thing? Are you, ONCE AGAIN, only finding, and only looking for, the so called "evidence" of what you BELIEVE is already true?
You already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.
I have already tried to find some one who is able to look at ALL things, and NOT just some things. But no one here in this thread has been able to do that, yet? The people here ONLY want to see that what fits in with their already small and narrow view of things. People here do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths, that is because from what they propose, they already KNOW what the truth is. To some people an object traveling at a fraction below the speed of light takes roughly 70 days to travel a distance of over four light years, and THAT IS TRUE, they propose.